S.R.BRAHMBHATT,J. - (1.) On 02.08.2019, the Court passed the following order : "1. The present petition is taken-­out under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying for appointment of arbitrator to adjudicate dispute between the petitioner and respondents with regard to the Contract Agreement between them. The petitioner prays as under :-­ "A. Your Lordships will be pleased to appoint the arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the parties. B. Your Lordships will be pleased to grant any other and further relief as may be deemed just and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.
(2.) The facts in brief as could be gathered from the memo of the petitioner deserves to be set-­out as under :-­ 2.1 The petitioner, an Engineers and Infrastructure Developers registered company, was awarded the contract for Construction of 2016 dwelling Unit under SEWS Housing Scheme in various T.P. Scheme in the Jurisdiction of GUDA Area by acceptance letter no.GUDA/Infrastructure/5155/2013 dated 3rd January 2013 for an amount of Rs.83,26,80,818.53 which was 4.50% above the estimated cost of Rs.79,68,23,749.79. The contract period for completion of work was 18 months and thus, the date for completion of work was 1st August 2014. However, the work could not be completed within stipulated period due to few reasons, and extension was sought upto 31st March 2016 without imposing any compensation for delay by letters dated 1st July 2014, 1st October 2015 and 1st February 2016. The reasons for delay, as stated by the petitioner are as under :-­ (i) The petitioner submits that the work was issued to petitioner on 18th January 2013 with the stipulated time limit of 18 months, start from 15th day of issue of work order i.e. upto 2 nd August 2014. (ii) The petitioner submits that the layout drawing with 576 units for plot no.3561 and 352 were issued to the petitioner on 30th January 2013. (iii) The petitioner submits that the layout drawing for 128 units at Chiloda site were given to the petitioner on 12th March 2013 i.e. after 55 days from the issue of work order. (iv) The petitioner submits that layout drawing for 288 units at Plot No.368 were given to the petitioner on 4th April 2013 after final demarcation of plot boundary i.e. after 78 days from the issue of work order. (v) The petitioner submits that excavation depth for plot no.351 and 352 were finalized on 13th February 2013 and 5th March 2013 initial delay of almost one month. (vi) The petitioner submits that the work was standstill from 7th May 2013 to 8th June 2013 due to revision in reinforcement design. The petitioner submits that the progress was affected at least two months on this account. (vii) The petitioner submits that there was a discrepancy to provide ground beam or plinth beam but the final design to provide both were decided on 18th March 2013 almost after 60 days from the issue of work order. (viii) The petitioner submits that final decision to provide one way or two way slabs were decided on 1st May 2013 after 105 days from the date of work order. (ix) The petitioner submits that the layout drawing with 256 units for Adalaj site were provided to the petitioner on 7th September 2013 with the instruction to take up the work only of 128 units. The petitioner submits that the slab work was held up for want of clearance of sunk depth. The same was cleared on 7 th February 2014 i.e. almost 180 days from the issue of layout drawings and almost one year delay from the start of the project. (x) The petitioner submits that you are well aware that even as on date the site clearance for only 1120 unit are given to the petitioner which is only 56% of awarded units i.e. 2016. (xi) The petitioner submits various samples of finishing material was procured and the same was approved on 13th August 2013 during the visit of Hon'ble Chairman and CEO. (xii) The petitioner submits that the sample house as per contract items as well as with the approved sample was prepared at site and the same was seen by all the officials on 5th October 2013 during the visit of Hon'ble CEO. (xiii) The petitioner submits that a meeting was organized at GUDA office on 18th October 2013 for various discussions for modification/changes in prepared sample house. (xiv) The petitioner submits that the new sample house with all suggestion/changes along with furniture was made at site immediately and same was finally approved on 2nd November 2013 during the visit of Hon'ble CEO. (xv) The petitioner submits that the drawing of water supply and drainage system was issued to the petitioner on 15th May 2014 but they are unable to take up any finishing activity due to non availability / clearance of detailed drawings. (xvi) The approval of acceptance of all finishing items were conveyed to us verbally on 21st July 2014 i.e. after 530 days from the start of the work till such time all finishing activity such as internal electrification, doors, windows, ventilators, flooring, painting, china-­mosic on terrace etc., was stand-­still which is having almost 32% value of work. (xvii) The details of staircase finishing, fiber roofing shed and water proofing in sunken area were conveyed to us on 14 th October 2014 i.e. after 21 months from the award of the work. In addition thereto, petitioner further submitted that they carried-­out additional quantity of work compared to BOQ quantity and for that they required additional time. They have not received any payment for work executed beyond the BOQ quantity which had affected the cash flow of the project. Due to non timely payment of R. A. Bills and non-­payment of price variation, not only the progress of work affected very badly which was brought to the notice of the department from time to time. 2.2 As per the say of the petitioner the drawings, details and decisions were given in piecemeal within the stipulated period of 18 months, even thereafter many details were not finalized and in spite of various holds/hindrances, which were totally beyond the control of petitioner, petitioner has been always keeping the pace of work with expectations of department. The extension was granted unilaterally upto 30th October 2014 instead of 31st March 2016. 2.3 The factors considered by the department for extending the time limit upto 30th October 2014 was not known to the petitioner. However, there was delay of almost 7 months in submitting the request for extension of time on 1st July 2014. The petitioner had requested for extension of time upto 30th April 2015. Apart from providing sites in piecemeal, drawings, details, non-­payment of price various as per arrangement, the delay in bill payments and delay in extra excess item rates were the factors for delaying the project. The petitioner submits that finishing activities require more time in comparison with the activities of frame work, the clearance for the same were given on 29th July 2014 during the site visit of Executive Engineer which was just before two days of expiry of stipulated period that too after repeated requests and reminders. The petitioner submits that simultaneous progress of work was hampered which was resulted delay in overall completion and in view of this, again the petitioner requested to extend the time limit upto 31st March 2016 without any liquidated damages. 2.4 The copy of the agreement was not supplied to the petitioner for quite some time. The petitioner submitted that almost after passing of 14 months from the award of the work, after continuous reminders xerox copy of the agreement was provided in the month of March 2014. The petitioner submits that against Clause-­30 it is mentioned that "as Separate sheet attached(1) Disputes to be referred to Tribunal", however no separate sheet is attached in the copy provided to the petitioner. As the GUDA being local authority the disputes can't be adjudicated by the Gujarat Public Works Contracts Arbitration Tribunal as specified in the Clause-­30 and the disputes are required to be adjudicated by domestic arbitration. 2.5 Though all the works were completed on 31st March 2016, the GUDA not recorded the completion of work. However, by notice dated 13th November 2017, the respondents were called upon for the time being to make the payment of above amounts together with interest @ 18% p.a. from the due date till its realization OR appoint the Arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the parties within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice. The petitioner submits that though the notice is received by the respondents on 14th November 2017 neither the requirements of the notice are complied with nor any reply is given.
(3.) Hence, the present petition.;